| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20061031165748.GA15236@in.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:27:48 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> To: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> Cc: "Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...nvz.org>, dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com, haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com, matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com, devel@...nvz.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:34:52AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > How about the cpusets approach, where once a cpuset has no children > and no processes, a usermode helper can be executed - this could > immediately remove the container/bean-counter if that's what the user > wants. My generic containers patch copies this from cpusets. Bingo. We crossed mails! Kirill/Pavel, As I mentioned in the begining of this thread, one of the objective of this RFC is to seek consensus on what could be a good compromise for the infrastructure in going forward. Paul Menage's patches, being rework of existing code, is attactive to maintainers like Andew. >From that perspective, how well do you think the container infrastructure patches meet your needs? -- Regards, vatsa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists